Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
122 <br /> environmental cost would contradict the mission of the very program through which the County <br /> originally purchased these parcels: "to protect and conserve the county's most important natural <br /> and cultural resource lands before they are damaged or destroyed." <br /> "Severing Access" <br /> I now turn to the specific concerns that David Stancil raises. This will also provide me with an <br /> opportunity to correct misrepresentations created by our brief notes on prior site plans. <br /> Mr. Stancil writes, "The current unpaved access easement, if improved, would sever access to <br /> 20-acres of the 79-acre future park site that lies south of the existing access easement." If the <br /> current access easement does not already sever access to the southern 20 acres, then it is <br /> hard to see how making it about eight feet wider would cause it to do so. Why, for that matter, <br /> should any such roadway be thought to sever access to the soccer fields or to anything else? If <br /> the proposed soccer complex is built, there will presumably need to be some roadway access <br /> improvement to it and its parking lots. When built, these roadways will likely be viewed not as <br /> severing access but as creating access. Rather than multiplying the number of roads, future site <br /> planners, hired by the County, may discover that the best design of the soccer complex might <br /> incorporate the current access road as shared infrastructure. This was a conclusion reached by <br /> prior engineers. In 2018 Civil Consultants offered two options for the soccer complex location in <br /> their feasibility study. The first option, shown on page 8, shows the current access road leading <br /> to the soccer complex's parking lot located just north of what is now my ten-acre parcel. <br /> If, on the other hand, the current access easement does sever access to the southern 20-acres, <br /> then the County's problem will not be with us but with the tower owner, Crown Castle. Crown <br /> Castle holds a "perpetual right-of-way" to the existing easement both for vehicle access and for <br /> the utilities running parallel to the road (Record Book 4683, page 157). It is my impression that <br /> their service contractors and technicians use this road significantly more than just for a few trips <br /> per year.5 <br /> It is doubtful that the County would be able to get Crown Castle to agree to moving their access <br /> and utility easement. Crown Castle is a multi-billion dollar international entity with over 40,000 <br /> cell towers. As someone who owns land upon which a Crown Castle tower is located, I can <br /> attest to what it is like to interact with this faceless company. There is no one in Crown Castle <br /> who has both familiarity with the Millhouse road properties and the authority to make any legal <br /> decision about the access road. That authority rests with Crown Castle's out-of-state lawyers <br /> who have no motivation to cooperate in a neighborly manner even if it costs them nothing to do <br /> so. Unless the County can find a way to legally require Crown Castle to surrender its current <br /> access easement, it is unlikely that such a petition will even be duly considered. <br /> s I have visited the site on about twenty occasions in the last year. Twice I have encountered contractors <br /> at the cell tower and whenever I visit I notice signs of road usage. Due to the amount of discarded trash I <br /> find near the tower, I have considered setting out trash bins. <br /> 4 <br />